masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:SpartHawg948
User:SpartHawg948/archive1 Mercenaries Category I see many articles relating to mercenaries, but I couldn't find any category for it. I think there are sufficient articles for a sub category Mercenaries under the Adversaries category. --silverstrike 23:53, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :Works for me! SpartHawg948 00:51, February 12, 2010 (UTC) ::Should I move the content of the Mercenaries article to the new category and redirect? --silverstrike 02:36, February 12, 2010 (UTC) :::No, cuz the category should just be a repository of all Merc-related articles, it shouldn't be an article in it's own right. SpartHawg948 04:01, February 12, 2010 (UTC) Hello My background is involvement with the Dragon Age wikia, editor for Wikipedia and Scientipedia, and I run my own mediawiki wiki. Herwin 15:51, February 12, 2010 (UTC) Upon editing a page, no place to leave a reason why Hi, I'm pretty new here. I just edited 2 pages and found that there was no place to leave the reason why I edited them? The page says to leave your reason in the box below, but there is no box. Thanks! ResilientMonkey 16:00, February 12, 2010 (UTC) :Take a look at: Mass Effect Wiki:Manual of Style. --silverstrike 16:08, February 12, 2010 (UTC) Thanks! I wasn't clear on that since the Summary box is pre-filled in. I understand now. Collector Ship Hi, The Collector Cruiser page currently has this in it: "The Collector Cruiser seen in Mass Effect 2 is currently the only known Collector ship." I believe that we don't have enough to stand on to make this assertion, while User:Jaline insists that it is valid. We have changed it back and forth, and in the event of an 'edit war' an administrator should probably be consulted. What is your stand on the matter? Regards, UERD 02:07, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :Just posted my thoughts on Talk: Collector Cruiser. Read them there. Also, could you either fix or remove the redlink you left? The proper way to link to a user is, of course, User:Jaline|Jaline (all in brackets, of course). Like so- Jaline. Thanks, SpartHawg948 02:10, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :(Also, using the actual title of the article, as opposed to a redirect title, is always nice. It's Collector Cruiser, not Collector Ship. Makes it easier for me to link to the talk page if I actually have the real title of the article here.) SpartHawg948 02:12, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :: Thanks for your input :). I also fixed all the relevant links, sorry about that. UERD 02:15, February 13, 2010 (UTC) New Templates Suggestions I've been working on two separate templates: #Multi-page navigation - Mass Effect Wiki talk:Manual of Style/General#Multi-Page Articles #Mission Summary float-box - Mass Effect Wiki talk:Manual of Style/Missions I would appreciate if you could take a look and comment on them. --silverstrike 17:11, February 13, 2010 (UTC) Incorrect Assumptions? I believe it is impossible to leave Zaeed to die on his loyalty mission, I also believe it is impossible to Kill Grunt right after you release him from the pod. I believe I have tried every way and couldn't do either, so I think their pages shouldn't have that on there. But am I wrong? :I have similarly tried every way to kill Zaeed on the loyalty mission and to kill Grunt when released, but I have been unable to do so. I've been trying so I can kill as many teammates as possible to get the Shepard dies ending. I keep wondering if there is some magical Paragon or Renegade number now, but no matter how high or low, I am unable to do it. I know that killing Samara was only possible upon doing a successful Charm or Intimidate beforehand. If there was no Charm or Intimidate, the option to choose doesn't appear and Samara lives. —Seburo 04:57, February 14, 2010 (UTC) Kelly chambers romance guide I suppose this is the equivalent of a pm , if not im terribly sorry I have absolutely no idea how this works. Anyhow , I have written a guide in how to romace kelly chambers, in much more detail than the one you have here "http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Kelly_Chambers" as it was not very helpful, not at all. I submitted the guide here "http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Kelly_Chambers#romance.3F" again because i dont know where the appropriate place is. Hopefully you ARE the person I should talk to. If not, forward it to whoever is. Thanks for your time, I hope I helped 09:53, February 14, 2010 (UTC)Kal'R 09:53, February 14, 2010 (UTC) :Ok, just to clear this up, the romance section of the Kelly Chambers page is not meant to be a step-by-step walkthrough. It's just a little section about how she is romancable, followed by some info about how she differs from the other romance options. So no, a much more detailed walkthrough is not needed, at least not on the Kelly Chambers page. That kind of stuff belongs in the Forums. SpartHawg948 10:32, February 14, 2010 (UTC) OT: User SilentShadow Hey. How you're doing? I'm a admin at Assassin's Creed Wiki, and user SilentShadow has created a userpage there for writing of a Mass Effect guide. I've done some background check, and he seems to be somewhat... pesky. Since you had some "history" with him, won't hurt to ask your opinion. You think he can be trouble? -- D. Cello 00:31, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :Well hello! Always nice to see folks from other wikis! Yes, yes I do think he can be trouble. He has a history of rude behavior and making derogatory comments to other users, as well as attempting to monopolize articles by posting things at the top of the page such "THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, please do not edit anything before it is completed" and "do not edit this our self because I'm constantly playing the game and typing here." I can't say for sure that's how your wiki operates (it's a very nice wiki, btw. I was there all the time while I was playing Assassin's Creed 2) but I'm sure you don't appreciate users telling other users not to edit pages. As for what he's doing over there, that's up to you, but I know I wouldn't be too keen on someone using their page here for an AC2 guide. He has to do it there b/c he was banned from this wiki for his behavior. Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any more questions! :) SpartHawg948 00:56, February 15, 2010 (UTC) New Person - Slightly confused... Hi, Don't want to make an enormous fuss, but can I ask for an explanation why we want tons and tons of redirects all over the place? I know it makes it slightly easier for a new person to add content, but it does add quite a bit of work for the wiki software / internet connections. Not trying to rock the boat too hard, just would like to know why the policy is in place? Dancing.Shadow 01:17, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :Well, the reason we have the redirects is so we don't have to have a ton of aliases in articles. It makes it easier for editors when making changes to articles. Our goal isn't to be software/internet connection friendly, it's to be user friendly. SpartHawg948 01:24, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :: Been reading through editing pages and run into something I didn't know (or had forgotten), that you can point a link and tag the s on afterwards eg: turians becomes turians : Would this be acceptable? Its just something that I can be quite anal about, had to survive on a very VERY bad net connection for a year or two, plus I like to have the syntax "right". : Plus if we can loose 20 - 30 pages it seems like a nice thing to me... : Feel free to tell me if I'm being an idiot. : Dancing.Shadow 01:29, February 15, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, I'd really not have too much of an issue with just using things like turians in articles (although I have seen numerous instances where it doesn't display properly) but I'd really rather not have every single instance where a redirect is used in an article changed to that, as we have a policy that if something is correct the way it is, we'd really rather users didn't go in and change it just to make it more acceptable to them personally. And even if we did this across the board, new users would still be using the redirects in articles, and we wouldn't "lose" any articles, as the redirects would still stay around, as they are very useful when using the search box, which is why most of the redirects were created in the first place, after all. SpartHawg948 01:34, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :::Note that redirects are server side and add no network load. --DRY 02:24, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :: Oops, thanks for the tip, was working on an in house wiki a couple of weeks ago and that had Terrible (oh yes does it rate capital T) lag from redirects, thought they were using recent wikia software but apparently not... Ah well live and learn Dancing.Shadow 02:27, February 15, 2010 (UTC) ::::Well it can be configured/hacked to return 302 but I'd be gobsmacked if they did – for exactly the reason that you mentioned. A quick check shows that this is indeed the case: Assignment and Assignments both result in virtually the same HTTP transaction (with encoding:gzip for Firefox anyway). --DRY 02:34, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Nope. "Archaic" is not an archaic word. It has a meaning and a purpose. It was adopted from Greek into the English language in the 1800s. "Whilst" is an unnecessary change from "while" grounded in Early Modern English from the pre-Renaissance days that is recognized by most guidelines for style to be both archaic and needlessly strange to American and Canadian readers. Worse still, not every instance of its use within is correct. The distinctions between "whilst" and "though" may be subtle, but they exist. Style considerations aside, whilst/while has a temporal connotation. "Though" does not. In sentences that compare two concepts and have no temporal element necessary in the conjunction, "whilst" is not just stylistically a poor choice, it is wrong. Restoring the edits, then, is a step forward not only for international standards and usability, but for correctness. None of the edits I made were incorrect or violative of wiki standards. As such, they should not have been reverted without a good reason. Fear of rocking the boat is not one of those reasons. :Note also, however, Mass Effect Wiki:Manual of Style#Spelling. We do cater to both sides of the pond here. --DRY 03:25, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Watchlist question Something I noticed on the watchlist, there's a green/red number by the page. It is positive or negative, respectively, and my only guess is that it is the number of lines added or subtracted. Is my guess right, or is it something else? :Yup, you are right on the money! :) SpartHawg948 04:04, February 15, 2010 (UTC) ::Number of characters rather than lines, but yes. --DRY 04:06, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :::You mean there haven't been 1,718 lines added to my talk page in the past hour? (not counting this entry, of course!) Sure seems like it! :P SpartHawg948 04:07, February 15, 2010 (UTC) ::Thanks Zero-G Mako 12:46, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Hey, all cool. I'm new to the editing thing or I'd add sources more often, I have a youtube video of the commercial from Illium. I hope this is enough. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQFF5crvydg Creating Morality Guide for ME2 Hey, I've started working on the ME 2 morality guide and for organizational purposes, I think the original morality guide shout be renamed to "Mass Effect Morality Guide" as I've named the new one, "Mass Effect 2 Morality Guide". I don't know how to change a main title though. --Karstedt 06:10, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Suggestions As I've done so far through the forums, I'd like to know what your current policy is in regards to suggestions. I do not wish to butt heads with administration and I don't wish to create a negative atmosphere. However, I would like to suggest improvements for the wikia in a constructive manner. If you could please let me know what the most productive course would be I would greatly appreciate it. I apologize for the main page edit and any comments which may have offended you. 07:35, February 16, 2010 (UTC) :If you have suggestions, the most productive methods of disseminating them would be to either A) Bring the suggestions up on the relevant talk pages, or B) Send them to myself or one of the other admins. We're here to help. Just a quick word to the wise though, I can come across as a bit abrasive, so if you send me suggestions, it's a good idea to do the background research. For example, pointing out that we've had nearly 30 FAs on this wiki to support your proposal of rotating the FAs on a weekly, rather than a monthly, basis, seems well and good until you factor in that it's not that we've had nearly 30 FAs, it's that we've only had just under 30 FAs since July of 2007. Less than 30 FAs over the span of 32 months averages out to less than one new FA a month. Hardly support for speeding up the rotation. SpartHawg948 07:43, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Doing the research is a requisite and I seem to have forgetten it this time. Ah well, next time I suppose. I too come off as abrasive at times, so I won't take offense. Your proposal should work out just fine, and I salute you for your effort not to cop-out. 08:44, February 16, 2010 (UTC) :Why thank you! I do what I can! :) In all seriousness though, while I may have come across a bit too harshly at first, I do wish to extend to you my appreciation for bringing this up. I started thinking about it, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized we probably can do better than once a month! SpartHawg948 08:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Ahh, progress. What a thing. As I mentioned, let me know if I can help. 08:50, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Also, let this serve as a lesson to my detractors (yes, I know, you're all shocked that someone as, er... nice, as me could have detractors! I'm shocked too. :P) that I CAN compromise, but in order to do so, there has to be a suggestion/proposal worthy of compromise!!! SpartHawg948 08:52, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Races discussion I think that, at the very least, you could define these categories within the article to head off confusion. Until I have a more comprehensive suggestion that takes your given parameters into account, that's all I got. Again, I think it's going to lead to trouble in the long run to use codex categories that only cover a portion of the races/creatures in Mass Effect. As more and more of them crop up without listings, you run into the problem of dissenting classification, and ambiguously different categories. If the article were to at least explain these categories, it would help. [[User:Fodigg|''—fodigg]] [[User_talk:fodigg|(''talk)]] | 14:53, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Weapons during Battle of Citadel Hi. A few question about the weapons used in the naval battle at the end of ME. I read about every post talking about this, but couldn't find what i was looking for. So, the Alliance cruisers shown in the final cinematic fire 3 types of ammo, a missile/torpedo, 2 laser beams and something that looks like 2 globes of molten metal that unite during flight. Is that molten metal fired from the mass accelerator ? And if so, why is it fired from the lower bow of the ship and not from the spinal gun ? Also, i understand lasers are only seen in GARDIAN systems. If so, then the 2 beams fired just before the final blow given to Sovereign must have been from a GARDIAN system...isn't it poorly placed on the front of the Alliance cruiser, where it can easily be avoided by fighters ? Finally, those missile like things are in the end disruptor torpedoes, right ? I thought they were only for fighter. Much appreciated. :No idea. I'm not a writer at BioWare. I have exactly the same resources at my disposal as you do on this one, so all I can do is make educated guesses. As for why the Mass Accelerator rounds appear to be emitted from the wrong part of the cruisers, you need to talk to the folks at BioWare about this one, as I have no clue. None whatsoever. I'm just some guy who helps out as an admin here. :RE the GARDIAN fire- GARDIAN systems consist of multiple turrets to afford a full field of fire. There is no reason not to place one on the front of the ship, and one very good reason TO put one there. If there were no GARDIAN coverage of the front of the cruiser, that would become the natural avenue of attack for enemy fighters, wouldn't it? They'd see this big unprotected area and go for it. It'd be stupid to not put a GARDIAN there. Remember too that GARDIAN systems are not just used against fighters, but also against missiles. And I doubt the missiles will be looking to avoid GARDIAN turrets. Again, as full a field of fire as possible is better to avoid getting killed. :Finally, I don't recall it ever being stated that disruptor torpedoes are only mounted on fighters. The Codex says disruptor torpedoes are the primary armament for fighters, but that doesn't mean there can't be disruptor torpedoes on larger vessels as well. You also have to consider that they may not be disruptor torpedoes at all. The "missile like things" may be Javelin projectiles, which are clearly stated to be used by larger vessels. :Again, I'm really not the best person to ask, but I hope this helped some. SpartHawg948 23:11, February 16, 2010 (UTC) :There was an old post on the Bioware forums http://meforums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=685301&forum=144&sp=30 by one of the game's writers, who also contributed a lot to the wiki, explaining that the cutscene in the battle isn't actually supposed to be representative of the technology in the game's universe. To quote, "So, despite what you see in the cutscenes, missiles are not used in Mass Effect space combat. Anything you saw that you interpreted as a missile was a hallucination caused by Sovereign's indoctrination of you. Please consult a qualified medical specialist." —Seburo 23:31, February 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, but that's more CYA than anything. The last two sentences pretty much scream that the entire entry is meant to be taken at least partially in jest. SpartHawg948 00:43, February 17, 2010 (UTC) :::One of the writers that's on here now, might be the same one (not sure), said that there was something of a breakdown in communications between the writing team and the cinematics team, at least on the nitty-gritty. So I probably wouldn't count the Battle of the Citadel as indicative of ME space battles. Here's to hoping that there's another good one in ME3! Compare it to Star Wars... Battle of Yavin was a good space battle, then Battle of Endor in the third one. Mmm, Endor. (Please no Death Stars in Mass Effect, Reapers are scary enough.) Boter 01:51, February 17, 2010 (UTC) ::::That's the exact post that I linked to and was quoting. The post was by Chris L'Etoile, who goes by Stormwaltz on here. —Seburo 02:31, February 17, 2010 (UTC) Why the snark? Are all admins on this wiki this combative? [[User:Fodigg|''—fodigg]] [[User_talk:fodigg|(''talk)]] | 22:06, February 17, 2010 (UTC)